Oct. 27
Thank you for posting this, Mike. I found it very informative.
Steven Dapra
At 11:47 AM 10/27/2011, you wrote:
>Upon review of the document that you linked to, the problem becomes
>clear: you don't know what you are talking about, and apparently don't
>understand what you read.
>>The document you linked to said:
>>"Isotope analyses to determine the types of uranium present show that
>0.0028 per cent of the uranium in the penetrators is in the form of
>isotope U-236. The presence of U-236 indicates that part of the DU came
>from reprocessed uranium. This information was provided by one of the
>five laboratories being used by UNEP for its DU assessment work.
>According to the laboratory, the content of U-236 in the depleted
>uranium is so small that the radiotoxicity is not changed compared to DU
>without U-236. However, the final assessment by UNEP will be made only
>once results from all laboratories are available."
>>This paragraph says several things.
>>It says that one of five labs found U-236 in very small amounts, leaving
>open the question of whether the other labs also found it and hadn't
>reported it, or hadn't found it, which in turn leaves open the question
>of whether U-236 was present only in the samples that went to one lab,
>or if it were missed by the other labs, or if it was identified by
>mistake by the lab that reported it. All are possible.
>>It also says that the presence of U-236 indicates that part of the
>depleted uranium came from reprocessed uranium. Reprocessed uranium is
>not the same as enriched uranium. Enriched uranium contains a greater
>percentage of U-235 than natural uranium; usually in at least the
>several percent range. This article does not mention U-235, and given
>the tiny, tiny amount of U-236 mentioned, one would expect that it would
>have come up.
>>The article also clearly states that the samples were collected in
>Kosovo, where there has never been any doubt that DU munitions were
>used, presumably mostly against armored vehicles, for which it is most
>effective. It's use in Kosovo does not imply its use in Fallujah, where
>there were no armored vehicles on the insurgent side.
>>Usually, if I cite something in support of an argument, it has something
>to do with that argument. Just saying.